Opposites Attract

One highly great indulgent argument among many that capture enthusiast's minds lays between that of philosophy, along with philosophy's "thoughtful derivatives," and religion itself. It seems though we can never achieve enough out of this dispute, most notably that of Creation and Evolution in its path. However, as author Marcus Weeks states "...both philosophy and religion are interrelated," like that of long lost cousins in his book Philosophy In Minutes. I also feel that most, if not many, cannot explain one without the other being present quite obviously enough. I often come into conjunction that many think religion is more so brought through strong feelings of confidence or trust. Though, is not that the same criteria for claiming a theory, belief, philosophy and so on, regarded in a similar manner? Clearly one must honestly place a degree of trust into what they speak or claim even as I do in these editorials. Specifically a theory or idea that can be examined more closely in the actuality or present moment noted in the subject

I like to reference Occam's Razor in this instance for I question "Is it not simpler, more reassuring or comforting that a time more recent would be more excusable than if we were to arbitrate a time further elapsed?" Even with science at its damn best, I would interject that a more obsolete time is to show more error than one more proximal. Here's my proposal. If history itself, given a supposed recent two hundred years to experiment with, had many flaws or reoccurred questioning and mystery to its study, how would thousands, or more prominently millions and now billions of years, seem practical? If I was to be devoted and committed enough to keep my life, job, and career on the line, I too would possibly pursue this influence with convincing myself everyday that I knew "exactly," or at my utmost, "allegedly" what happened a billion "odd" years ago. I sometimes question myself as to what I experienced even the day before. However, there is this strange remarkable phenomenon outside our human capabilities that reveals itself time and time again that never seems to change— the power of Nature divine.

To be close to certain with claiming such occurrence, incident, happening, etc., would most plainly be to devise a way in preserving those happenings rather than just always "guessing," "supposing" or "assuming," right? An honest and significant pertinence for this method of recording the narrative of experienced or unexpected undertaking past events, would be defined as History. This method of recording the narrative of experienced or unexpected undertaking past events, by definition "is by experience" reveals disturbing inferiority to my understanding because I do know that the individuals responsible for our "educational sources" do just this and have provided those sources along with incorporating them into society for us to "strongly believe." As much as it "greatly" sounds to have such desire and inspiration to possibly become something of a scientist, professor, physician, teacher, philosopher and so on, at the same time would eventually and oddly be in opposition of my own understanding from even now. So for something to be instilled in the mind of humans, and more "changeable," the heart of mankind, would it ever be truly rewarding and sufficient to those who listen? To proclaim such events, most especially and more detectable as ignorant, for this I note, those at least "without" (I emphasize for the mention of ignorance,) the instinctive-humanly-set-knowledge and the consciously-minded of infinite opposition that is manifestly and paradoxically so-called "balanced" for our (humanistic) reality as those far in the past in contrast (and possibly similar too), events of the future not yet conceived that is most and surely "more" apparent. Is this not History (recorded acts, ideas, or events that will or can shape the course of the future; immediate but significant happenings) itself to be our greatest candidate? To be close to certain with claiming such occurrence, incident, happening, etc., would most plainly be to devise a way in preserving those happenings rather than just always "guessing," "supposing" or "assuming," right?

The more I may seek to argue the differences between these two methods of thought I am just more and more signaled by their similarities and their inseparable timing. Once more, surely one would have to have some faith or trust in a philosophy you "believe" in as though you treated it such or even religiously and most noticeably so. I believe one must place such belief or "faith" in reach of determining a philosophy or theory. I "believe" this is why there is such a multitude of debate among one another, as it carries from generation to generation, is quite recognizably their constant parallel of interrelations but yet never quite meeting perfectly. And I would like to, close to fully, consider such "compatible opposition" would lead to this. A resembling relation that would experimentally support this concept is one of my most endeared friends who is near to absolute with unifying faith in a Higher Intelligence for their ultimate approach to life's on-going questioning, yet continues to place a severe doubt in a greater presence than himself. People having a knack for sticking by their thoughts are religiously seeking to uphold their beliefs and thinking which is recognizably where philosophy can be channeled from.

I feel people dispute the fact still between philosophy and religion because possibly they cannot come into acceptance and what causes people to continuously justify or reason is neglect to Intelligent order, standards, morals, principles, conduct, guideline, instruction, structure, and so forth. We as humans are selfish in nature, and everyone in their own philosophy would want to influence or incorporate, how "they" would want to administer the thought of another. And with the unfathomable amount of altered and propagated thinking leads us to become perfectly imperfect in constant opposition with one another.

Us humans may not want to abide by a guideline, what ever mode of being that may be, rather often incorporate some state of "change(s)." I love to state that "more change causes more confusion or difficulty" and never comes easy, most often, but those complications whether that be questioning, struggle, lack of completion or satisfaction due to "change" because another is always wanting or conceiving "change." Which what I have just mentioned in the manner I did may also reverence, not so much unfavorable, but render "purpose" just as respectably. And now this is but a mere cycle of life that we endure because, like I had mentioned, are perfectly imperfect which gives answer, if not close, to that of our self-driven purposes. Oddly and paradoxically, this can sound like a progression of failure to abide by, what ever such condition that also may be, ... is it failure or improvement? I do know opposition equals questioning, "so I hysterically think to myself." And now to others given these very statements ... so those words are possibly redundant now. "Oh the wonderment of perplexity in life."

Skepticism is just as notorious in theism as it is in atheism, hence its constant opposing confirmation. If one of the two had to better simulate selfishness, unconditionally, I would observe that of atheism to more uphold the scale. I state this for I find that atheism averts the readiness for death in addition with no peace of security for it. In contrast, having at least belief in life after death, whatever that may hold, consciously and blissfully preps one for death giving them peace as they pass, paradoxically since we can reconcile that we cannot ultimately time death for death itself is not timed (yet us humans are timed hence our promising warrant with Death), at least by our own understanding, but in hopes of an understanding which is (along with the association of death) greater than ourselves for we do not know of this excellent understanding of which is to come. Is it easier to question such or to accept such or is this after all equally indistinguishable?

We understand life because we live it, but we lack understanding in Death because we live it not. I strongly believe how one perceives Death will incline their way of thinking about how they live. Even though we do not want to think about Death so much, it is most certainly an important part of life (or intricately "the absence of life") whether it is our's or another's.

The parallelism with life and death ​is compellingly and perhaps similar in anticipation. If someone would in great faith hope that there is life after death, would they not want to be prepared for it? And if not, still be prepared for what we are uncertain of? For if not, then would the life we did live be in vain, maybe not to those that have been a part in each others lives, but more toward our own soul? We have "limited" control in the understanding of life we live, but we do not have any control in the understanding of death we have not "lived."